WHY ARE JOURNALISTS ABOVE THE LAW?

Attorney General Eric Holder has recently announced that the US Justice Department will not pursue the legal case to force New York Times reporter James Risen to testify as to who gave him the highly classified information that appeared in his book several years ago. In his book, he alleges that the CIA conducted a particular operation against the Iranian nuclear program. According to numerous newspaper accounts, the seeking of Risen’s source for the information is connected to the government’s prosecution of former CIA officer Jeff Sterling for giving out classified information. The legal case against Risen has been dragging on for several years, but had not been settled until this action by Holder. So, Risen does not have to name his source for the classified information he acquired to use in his book. Whoever in the government gave away the classified information is of course liable for prosecution, and if the source had given it to anyone but a journalist, the recipient would likewise face prosecution, but Holder’s action pretty well locks in as precedent that journalists – as they have long contended – don’t have to reveal their sources of information. They are above the law as it would apply to any regular citizen of the country.

But the question is, why are they above the law? I don’t recall voting for James Risen to any public office, nor any of the management of the New York Times, yet Mr. Risen took it upon himself to reveal to the world the supposed actions of the USG against Iran. Why does he get to decide what is good US foreign policy or not – and if he thinks it is not, he has the right to release such information. Giving such special privilege to people calling themselves “journalists” is troubling for several reasons. First, is the idea that journalists are such honorable, trustworthy individuals that they can be trusted with this special status. For the naïve who believe that, you might want to look up the names of Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelly. These are but three “journalists” of major news organizations who were eventually found out to have been fabricating stories so as to promote their careers and their egos. Second, in this internet age of “social media” who is a journalist? Mr. Risen is allegedly a reputable member of a prestigious newspaper, but does that same immunity to the laws apply to every crackpot who has a blog site and a readership of four friends? I’m sure such obscure “journalists” would claim they are entitled to the same protections as the New York Times.

The Washington Post on its webpage proudly advertises an internet method by which “information” can be shared with the Post completely anonymously. I presume that this is so their journalists can in the future tells courts that they don’t even know who leaked classified information to them. Not that they really have any concerns after the very liberal and testosterone-free Attorney General has assured them they are above the law.
There is the famous case of how the Chicago Tribune in 1942 wrote dramatic stories about the Battle of Midway, which to any literate reader who knew anything about sea battles, it was pretty clear that the US Navy had been reading the Japanese Navy’s coded messages preparing for that battle. Fortunately, no one in Japan subscribed to the Chicago Tribune and it was decided by the White House that to prosecute the journalist and paper involved would have brought even more attention to the articles – and thus confirming suspicions raised by the articles that we had broken the Japanese code. Such poor journalistic ethics in 1942 might somehow be explained as wanting to give the American public some good news after the disaster of Pearl Harbor a few months earlier. But in November 2014, the Chicago Tribune ran an editorial in connection with efforts to get the grand jury testimony of 1942 released and still being arrogant asses, proudly claimed that they’d had the right to publish such stories back in 1942.